DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0052816, filed on April 21, 2023.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: Table 1, third column, “Second additive (Chemical Formula 2)” should be amended to “Second additive (Chemical Formula 3-1)” or “Second additive (Chemical Formula 3)”.
Paragraph [00167] of the instant specifications shows that for the preparation of the electrolytes of Example 1, “1.00 wt % of a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 3-1”. Paragraph [0081] discloses “a representative, non-limiting example of the second additive is as follows: Chemical Formula 3-1”. Paragraph [00176] of the instant specifications shows that “Comparative Example 1 used no additives at all, Comparative Examples 2 to 6 used the first additive alone, and Comparative Examples 7 to 11 used the second additive alone.” The abstract, paragraph [0007], [0054], and [0070] all show that the second additive is represented by Chemical Formula 3. Paragraph [0032] shows that “the second additive represented by Chemical Formula 3 may be represented by Chemical Formula 3-1.” Hence, the second additive corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 or Chemical Formula 3-1, not Chemical Formula 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-5, 10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4-6, 9,10, 16, 17 of copending Application No. 18/776,080 in view of Young et al. (KR 20210069546 A), as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR 20210069546 A.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 (US 2025/0210709) claim 17 recites an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent; a lithium salt; a first additive comprising at least one compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2 and a second additive comprising at least one compound represented by any one of Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-9 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-1, m is an integer of 1 to 5, and R5 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluoro phosphite group (-OPF2); wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-2, L5 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkylene group.
The first additive compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2 of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 falls within the scope of the broader composition recited in claim 1 first additive Chemical Formula 1 of the instant invention. Claim 1 of the instant invention recites X1 and X2 are each a halogen, or —O-L1-R1, provided that at least one selected from X1 and X2 is —O-L1-R1; L1 is a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group; R1 is a cyano group (—CN), a difluorophosphite group (—OPF2), or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group; and if X1 and X2 are —O-L1-R1 at the same time, R1 is each independently present, or two R1s are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle.
Application No. 18/776,080
PNG
media_image1.png
152
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Application No. 18/776,080
PNG
media_image2.png
146
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Instant application
PNG
media_image3.png
166
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The second additive compound represented by any one of Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-9 of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 is not the second additive compound in Chemical Formula 3, claim 1 of the instant application. Second additive compound represented by any one of Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-9 are phosphoric acid-based because each compound contains a central phosphorus atom bonded to four oxygen atoms, three of which are bonded to organic substituents.
However, Young et al. teach that phosphoric acid-based flame retardants have a disadvantage in interfering with the movement characteristics of ions in lithium secondary batteries, thereby reducing battery performance (para [0002]). Young et al. further teach Poly(benzyl methacrylate), which corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 of the instant application as an improved flame-retardant additive in liquid electrolyte composition (para [0013]).
Young et al. disclose a liquid electrolyte comprising a fluoride-based first additive and a second additive (Young et al., abstract), wherein the second additive is poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention, as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich chemical structure of poly(benzyl methacrylate). Accordingly, R20 is —CH3 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b is an integer of 0 to 5, and b is 0 in this case, so the claim does not require R21; L20 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group. Young et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of this polymer may be from 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol (para [0013]). The repeated unit of poly(methyl methacrylate) has an empirical formula C11H12O2 and a molecular weight of approximately 11 x 12.011 + 12 x 1.008 + 15.999 x 2 = 176.2 g/mol. After dividing the weight average molecular weight of the polymer range by the molecular weight of the repeated unit, n is approximately 6 to 568 repeated units, which overlaps the claimed range of a is an integer of 1 to 100.
((poly(methyl methacrylate), Sigma-Aldrich)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Instant application
PNG
media_image5.png
224
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to add the second additive poly(benzyl methacrylate) taught by Young et al. to the electrolyte in claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 because it would improve flame retardancy properties of the electrolyte (Young et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 (US 2025/0210709) claims a first additive comprising at least one compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-1, m is an integer of 1 to 5, and R5 is a cyano group (-CN) or a difluorophosphite group (-OPF2); wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-2, L5 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkylene group (Application No. 18/776,080 Claim 17).
Claim 2 of the instant invention recites one selected from X1 and X2 is a fluoro atom and the other is —O-L3-R3; L3 is a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group; R3 is a cyano group (—CN) or a difluorophosphite group (—OPF2) which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-1 of copending Application No. 18/776,080;
or X1 is —O-L4-R4 and X2 is —O-L5-R5; L4 and L5 are each independently a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group; R4 and R5 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, and R4 and R5 are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle, which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/776,080.
The first additive compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2 of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 falls within the scope of the broader composition recited in claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant invention, the first additive compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Chemical Formula 1-2 of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 17 are identical to claim 3 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 4 are identical in scope of claim 4 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 5 are encompassed by the broader scope of claim 5 of the instant invention. The only difference is the omission of Chemical Formula 2-1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 8 recites a weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 10:1 to about 1:10. The instant application claim 10 recites a weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 1:2 to about 1:20. Hence, the scope of copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 8 overlaps with the scope of the instant application claim 10.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 9 recites the first additive is in an amount of about 0.1 to about 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte. The instant application claim 11 recites the first additive is included in an amount of about 0.10 to about 2.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Thus, claim 11 of the instant invention falls within the scope of the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 9.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 10 recites the second additive is in an amount of about 0.1 to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte. The instant application claim 12 recites the second additive is included in an amount of about 1.00 to about 15.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Hence, the scope of copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 10 overlaps with the scope of the instant application claim 12.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 17 recites a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a cathode comprising a single positive electrode active material consisting of a cobalt-free lithium nickel-manganese-based oxide; an anode comprising a negative electrode active material; and an electrolyte. The instant application claim 13 recites a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material; and the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1. Chemical Formula 2-6 to 2-9 of claim 17 are not within the scope of the instant application. Hence, the scope of copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 17 overlaps with the scope of the instant application claim 13.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant invention, copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 16 recite the cathode comprises the cobalt-free lithium nickel-manganese-based oxide represented by Lia4Nix4Mny4M5z4O2-b4Xb4 wherein 0. 9 ≤ a4 ≤ 1.8, 0.8 ≤ x4 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y4 ≤ 0.2,
0≤ z4 ≤ 0.2, 0.9 ≤ x4 + y4 + z4 ≤ 1.1, and 0 ≤ b4 ≤ 0.1, M5 being one or more element elements selected from among Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, Si, Sn, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr, and X being one or more selected from among F, P, and S.
The instant application claim 14 recites that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by Lia1Nix1M1 y1M2 z1O2-b1Xb1 wherein, 0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.2, 0.7 ≤ x1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.2, 0.9 ≤ x1 + y1 + z1 ≤ 1.1, and
0 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.1; M1 and M2 are each independently one or more elements selected from Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr; and X is one or more elements selected from F, P and S. Hence, the scope of copending Application No. 18/776,080 claim 16 overlaps with the scope of the instant application claim 14.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 1-5, 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, 7, 9-15 of copending Application No. 18/003,110 in view of Young et al. (KR 20210069546 A), as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR 20210069546 A.
Regarding claim 1 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 1 recites an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive, wherein the additive is a composition including a first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2.
The Markush structure of the second compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 is identical to the first additive compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the instant application claim 1.
Copending Application No. 18/003,110
PNG
media_image6.png
193
217
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Instant application
PNG
media_image3.png
166
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 1 recites X1 and X2 are each independently a halogen, or one or more of X1 and X2 is -O-L'-R4,wherein L1 is a single bond or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylene group, and R4s are each independently a cyano group (-CN), a difluorophosphite group (- OPF2), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkynyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group, and when X1 and X2 are simultaneously -O-L1-R4, R4s are each independently present, or two R4s are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic or polycyclic aliphatic heterocycle or a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic or polycyclic aromatic heterocycle; and wherein, in the substituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, the substituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, the substituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group, the substituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, the substituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, the substituted C3 to C10 cycloalkenyl group, the substituted C3 to C10 cycloalkynyl group, the substituted C6 to C20 aryl group, the substituted C1 to C10 alkylene group, at least one hydrogen is replaced with deuterium, a halogen group, a hydroxyl group, an amino group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C30 amine group, a nitro group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C40 silyl group, a C1 to C30 alkyl group, a C1 to C10 alkylsilyl group, a C6 to C30 arylsilyl group, a C3 to C30 cycloalkyl group, a C3 to C30 heterocycloalkyl group, a C6 to C30 aryl group, a C2 to C30 heteroaryl group, a C1 to C20 alkoxy group, a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group, or a combination thereof.
Thus, the first additive in Chemical Formula 1 Claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of Chemical Formula 2, claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110.
The first compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 is not the second additive compound in Chemical Formula 3, claim 1 of the instant application.
copending Application No. 18/003,110
PNG
media_image7.png
194
268
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Second additive compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 is phosphoric acid-based because it contains a central phosphorus atom bonded to four oxygen atoms, three of which are bonded to organic substituents.
However, Young et al. teach that phosphoric acid-based flame retardants have a disadvantage in interfering with the movement characteristics of ions in lithium secondary batteries, thereby reducing battery performance (para [0002]). Young et al. further teach Poly(benzyl methacrylate), which corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 of the instant application as an improved flame-retardant additive in liquid electrolyte composition (para [0013]).
Young et al. disclose a liquid electrolyte comprising a fluoride-based first additive and a second additive (Young et al., abstract), wherein the second additive is poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention, as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich chemical structure of poly(benzyl methacrylate). Accordingly, R20 is —CH3 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b is an integer of 0 to 5, and b is 0 in this case, so the claim does not require R21; L20 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group. Young et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of this polymer may be from 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol (para [0013]). The repeated unit of poly(methyl methacrylate) has an empirical formula C11H12O2 and a molecular weight of approximately 11 x 12.011 + 12 x 1.008 + 15.999 x 2 = 176.2 g/mol. After dividing the weight average molecular weight of the polymer range by the molecular weight of the repeated unit, n is approximately 6 to 568 repeated units, which overlaps the claimed range of a is an integer of 1 to 100.
((poly(methyl methacrylate), Sigma-Aldrich)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Instant application
PNG
media_image5.png
224
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to add the second additive poly(benzyl methacrylate) taught by Young et al. to the electrolyte in claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 because it would improve flame retardancy properties of the electrolyte (Young et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 6 falls within the scope of claim 2 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 7 Chemical Formula 2-1 is identical to the instant application claim 3 Chemical Formula 1-1. The copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 9 Chemical Formula 2-2 is identical to the instant application claim 3 Chemical Formula 1-2.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 10 is identical to claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 11 falls within the broader scope of claim 5 of the instant invention. The only difference is the omission of Chemical Formula 2-1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 1 recites the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 0.01:1 to 100:1. The first compound corresponds to the second additive, and the second compound corresponds to the first additive. Hence, the corresponding weight ration between the first additive and second additive is 0.01 to 100. Claim 10 of the instant application recites a weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 1:2 to about 1:20. Thus, the scope of claim 10 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/003,110.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 13 recites the second compound is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5.0 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery. Claim 11 of the instant application recites the first additive is included in an amount of about 0.10 to about 2.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Thus, the scope of the instant application claim 11 falls within the scope of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 13.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 12 recites the first compound is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5.0 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery. Claim 12 of the instant application recites the second additive is included in an amount of about 1.00 to about 15.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Thus, the scope of the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 12 overlaps the scope of the instant application claim 12.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant invention, the copending Application No. 18/003,110 claim 15 is identical to claim 13 of the instant invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0251778A1) in view of Young et al. (KR 20210069546 A), as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR 20210069546 A.
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (para. [0060], an electrolyte for lithium secondary batteries) comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. [0060]); a lithium salt (para. [0060]); an additive (para. [0043]) represented by Compound 1 (para. [0050]) which reads on Chemical Formula 1 of the instant invention, wherein X1 is halogen -F; X2 is —O-L1-R1; L1 is —CH2—CH2 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C2 alkylene group; R1 is a cyano group (—CN).
(Choi et al. Para. [0050] Compound 1)
PNG
media_image8.png
155
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
166
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. fails to disclose a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 3.
Young et al. disclose a liquid electrolyte comprising a fluoride-based first additive and a second additive (abstract), wherein the second additive is poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) which reads on Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention, as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich poly(benzyl methacrylate) chemical structure. Accordingly, R20 is —CH3 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b is an integer of 0 to 5, and b is 0 in this case, so the claim does not require R21; L20 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group. Young et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of this polymer may be from 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol (para [0013]). The repeated unit of poly(methyl methacrylate) has an empirical formula C11H12O2 and a molecular weight of approximately 11 x 12.011 + 12 x 1.008 + 15.999 x 2 = 176.2 g/mol. After dividing the weight average molecular weight of the polymer range by the molecular weight of the repeated unit, n is approximately 6 to 568 repeated units, which overlaps the claimed range of a is an integer of 1 to 100. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
((poly(methyl methacrylate), Sigma-Aldrich)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
224
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. and Young et al. are analogous in the field of battery electrolyte additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the second additive poly(benzyl methacrylate) taught by Young et al. to the electrolyte of Choi et al. because it would improve flame retardancy properties of the electrolyte (Young et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein in Chemical Formula 1, X1 is a fluoro atom; X2 is —O-L3-R3; L3 is —CH2—CH2 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C2 alkylene group; R3 is a cyano group (—CN) (see discussion of claim 1 regarding the structure of Chemical Formula 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the additive (Choi et al. para. [0043]) represented by Compound 1 (Choi et al. para. [0050]) which reads on Chemical Formula 1 (see claim 1 discussion) and also reads on Chemical Formula 1-1 of the instant invention, wherein m is 2 and R3 is a cyano group (—CN).
(Choi et al. Para. [0050] Compound 1)
PNG
media_image8.png
155
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
161
712
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the first additive (Choi et al. para. [0043]) represented by Compound 1 (Choi et al. para. [0050]) which is identical to Chemical Formula 1-1a-2.
(Choi et al. Para. [0050] Compound 1)
PNG
media_image8.png
155
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
132
502
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) which reads on Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention (see claim 1 discussion above) wherein R20 —CH3 corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group. Although the claim further limits R21, the claim does not require its presence because b can be zero in the independent claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al meets the claimed requirements.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) which reads on Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention (see claim 1 discussion above) wherein L20 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the second additive (Young et al., para [0013]) which reads on Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention (see claim 1 discussion above) and also reads on Chemical Formula 3-1 of the instant invention. Young et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of this polymer may be from 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol (para [0013]). As explained in claim 1 discussion above, the calculated n is approximately 6 to 568 repeated units, which overlaps the claimed range of a is an integer of 1 to 100. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
((poly(methyl methacrylate), Sigma-Aldrich)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
228
532
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach a weight average molecular weight of the second additive is 1,000 to 1,000 g/mol (Young et al., para [0013]) which overlaps the claimed range of about 5,000 to about 1,000,000 g/mol. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the first additive is included in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte based on a total amount of the electrolyte (Choi et al., para [0061) and the second additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 30 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte (Young et al., para [0013]). Applying the upper and lower limit of each range yields the weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 1:1 to 1:6, which overlaps the claimed range of about 1:2 to about 1:20. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the first additive is included in an amount of 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte based on a total amount of the electrolyte (Choi et al., para [0061) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.10 to about 2.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the second additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 30 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte (Young et al., para [0013]) which overlaps the claimed range of 1.00 to about 15.00 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Young et al. taught that if the concentration of the second flame-retardant polymer additive is 0.1 wt% or less, the flame-retardant properties may not be sufficiently secured, and if it is 30 wt% or more, the ionic conductivity in the liquid electrolyte may be reduced (para [0013]). Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach a rechargeable lithium battery (Choi et al. claim 12, lithium secondary battery), comprising: a positive electrode (Choi et al. claim 12) comprising a positive electrode active material (Choi et al. para. [0088]); a negative electrode (Choi et al. claim 12) comprising a negative electrode active material (Choi et al. para. [0088]); and the electrolyte as claimed (Choi et al. claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach the positive electrode active material (Choi et al. para. [0075]); comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 (wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5) (Choi et al. para. [0075]) that reads on Chemical Formula A1, Lia1Nix1M1 y1M2 z1O2-b1Xb1
Co corresponds to M1 and Mn corresponds to M2.
For X, 0 ≤ b1 ≤ 0.1, and b = 0 in this case, so the claim does not require element X.
For Lia1 and Li, a1 = 1 which is inside the claimed range 0.9 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.2.
For Nix and Ni1-x-y, applying the upper and lower limit of 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5 and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 yields 0 ≤ 1 - x - y ≤ 1, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.7 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.
For M1 y1 and Cox, x corresponds to y1, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5 overlaps the claimed range 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.2.
For M2 z1 and Mny, y corresponds to z1, and 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 overlaps the claimed range 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.2.
For O2-b1 and O2, since b1 = 0, 2 – b1 = 2.
Lastly, (1 - y - x) + x + y = 1 corresponds to x1 + y1 + z1 and lies inside the claimed range
0.9 ≤ x1 + y1 + z1 ≤ 1.1. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Choi et al. and Young et al. teach a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Choi et al. para. [0096], the separator may be disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to form a battery assembly) and impregnated with the electrolyte is further included (Choi et al. para. [0096], the battery assembly may be impregnated with the electrolytic solution).
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatunov et al. (KR20170018739A) in view of Young et al. (KR 20210069546 A), as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR20170018739A and KR 20210069546 A.
Regarding claim 1, Shatunov et al. discloses an electrolyte (abstract) for a rechargeable lithium battery (para. [0002]) comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent (para [0058] listed applicable non-aqueous organic solvents such as DMC, EMC, DEC, EC…); a lithium salt (para. [0009]); an additive (para. [0046]) represented by Chemical Formula 1a (para. [0023] and para [0024]) which corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the instant invention, wherein X1 and X2 are —O-L1-R1 at the same time. L1 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group; R1 corresponds to R1 and R2. Shatunov et al. teach R1 and R2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group (Shatunov et al. Para. [0025) which overlaps with the claimed limitation, R1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Shatunov et al. further discloses that R1 and R2 may be connected to each other to form a ring (Para. [0026]) which corresponds to two R1s are linked to form an unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
(Shatunov et al. Para. [0023] - [0024] Chemical Formula 1a)
PNG
media_image12.png
330
670
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
166
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shatunov et al. fails to disclose a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 3.
Young et al. disclose a liquid electrolyte comprising a fluoride-based first additive and a second additive (abstract), wherein the second additive is poly(benzyl methacrylate) (Young et al., para [0013]) which reads on Chemical Formula 3 of the instant invention, as evidence by Sigma-Aldrich poly(benzyl methacrylate) chemical structure. Accordingly, R20 is —CH3 which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group; b is an integer of 0 to 5, and b is 0 in this case, so the claim does not require R21; L20 is —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group. Young et al. disclose the weight average molecular weight of this polymer may be from 1,000 to 100,000 g/mol (para [0013]). As discussed above, the repeated unit of polymer n is approximately 6 to 568 repeated units, which overlaps the claimed range of a is an integer of 1 to 100. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
((poly(methyl methacrylate), Sigma-Aldrich)
PNG
media_image4.png
309
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
224
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shatunov et al. and Young et al. are analogous in the field of battery electrolyte additives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the second additive poly(benzyl methacrylate) taught by Young et al. to the electrolyte of Shatunov et al. because it would improve flame retardancy properties of the electrolyte (Young et al., para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shatunov et al. and Young et al. teach the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein Chemical Formula 1a (Shatunov et al. para. [0023] and para [0024]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the instant invention (see discussion of Claim 1 above regarding chemical structure). X1 is —O-L4-R4 and X2 is —O-L5-R5. L4 and L5 are both —CH2— which corresponds to an unsubstituted C1 alkylene group. R4 corresponds to R1, and R5 corresponds to R2. Shatunov et al. teach R1 and R2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group (Shatunov et al. Para. [0025) which overlaps with the claimed limitation, R4 and R5 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, Shatunov et al. further discloses that R1 and R2 may be connected to each other to form a ring (Para. [0026]) which corresponds to R4 and R5 are linked to form a substituted or unsubstituted monocyclic aliphatic heterocycle. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shatunov et al. and Young et al. teach the electrolyte as claimed in claim 2, wherein the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1a (Shatunov et al. para. [0023] and para [0024]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 1 of the instant invention (see discussion of Claim 1 above regarding chemical structure). Furthermore, Shatunov et al. teach Chemical Formula 1a (Shatunov et al. para. [0023] and para [0024]) also corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-2 of the instant invention. Shatunov et al. teach R1 and R2 are connected to each other to form a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C5 alkylene group (Shatunov et al. para. [0026]), which meets the claim limitation of L6 is a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C5 alkylene group.
(Shatunov et al. Para. [0023] - [0024] Chemical Formula 1a)
PNG
media_image12.png
330
670
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
134
490
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shatunov et al. and Young et al. teach the electrolyte as claimed in claim 3, wherein the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1a (Shatunov et al. para. [0023] and para [0024]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-2 of the instant invention (see discussion of Claim 3 above regarding chemical structure).
Shatunov et al. teach Chemical Formula 2 (Shatunov et al. para. [0030] and para [0031]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-2a of the instant invention. R3 to R6 corresponds to R6 to R9 of the instant invention. Shatunov et al. teach R3 To R6 independently one or more selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a C1-C10 alkyl group, and a halogen atom (Shatunov et al. para. [0032]), which overlaps the claim range of a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
(Shatunov et al. para. [0030] and para [0031], Chemical Formula 2)
PNG
media_image14.png
512
636
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
172
480
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Shatunov et al. teach Chemical Formula 3 (Shatunov et al. para. [0033] and para [0034]) corresponds to Chemical Formula 1-2b of the instant invention. R7 to R12 corresponds to R10 to R15 of the instant invention. Shatunov et al. teach R7 to R12 independently one or more selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a C1-C10 alkyl group, and a halogen atom (Shatunov et al. para. [0035]), which overlaps the claim range of a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, the claim limitation is obvious.
(Shatunov et al. para. [0033] and para [0034], Chemical Formula 3)
PNG
media_image16.png
452
613
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
231
527
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.T.T./
THU T TRANExaminer, Art Unit 1788
08/10/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights